CRP/465/2025 of SMT. RENUKAMMA Vs SMT. BHAGYAMMA on 18 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024 passed on an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC in O.S.No.512/2023 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, the petitioners/defendant Nos.6 to 8 are before this Court.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking partition and a declaration that the sale deeds dated 22.11.2014 and 11.11.2021, and the gift deeds dated 04.11.2026 and 05.08.2019, are not binding on the plaintiffs. In the suit, the petitioners filed an application

HC-KAR

under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was an earlier partition and compromise, and that all the suit-schedule properties, which are part of the suit, are also part of the said compromise petition. Hence, the present suit for partition is not maintainable. Secondly, the sale deed was executed in the year 2014 and the gift deed in the year 2016; hence, the suit filed in the year 2023 is not maintainable. When an I.A. was filed on these grounds seeking rejection of the plaint, it was dismissed by the trial Court.

3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that the plaintiffs are seeking the share that was allotted to Bathyappa to be divided among them. Therefore, the contention of defendant Nos.6 to 8 that the present suit is filed challenging the compromise decree in O.S.No.204/2007 has to be held as misplaced. If, in the event, the present suit properties are found to have been part of the compromise in O.S. No. 204/2007, the suit would fail in so far as those properties are concerned. However, since it is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that Item Nos. 3 to 6 were not part of

HC-KAR

the compromise, the trial would have to be proceeded with respect to all the suit properties. This is the position of law as held by the Apex Court in several cases. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected in part, and accordingly, the trial Court has dismissed the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendant Nos.6 to 8 submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who purchased the property in the year 2014, and the suit was filed in the year 2023. It is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation, and the present suit for partition is not maintainable. The trial Court failed to consider any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, and the impugned order needs to be set aside, consequently, the plaint has to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs submits that the trial Court rightly considered and passed an order and there are no grounds to interfere.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The primary contention

HC-KAR

of the petitioner is with regard to the earlier suit of compromise. The earlier compromise decree will not bar the plaintiffs from filing the present suit, because the father was alive on the earlier date of partition and certain properties were allotted to him. He is no longer alive. The surviving heirs are entitled to a share in the said properties and have sought for the partition. The trial Court has rightly dealt with it.

7. Coming to the next contention with regard to the limitation, there are other properties that have to be partitioned among the family members. Even if the Court considers the limitation and other aspects, the plaint has to be rejected in part, which is not permissible in the light of the settled law. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and this Court does not find any reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

HC-KAR

ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 MR